If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How the fuck does a parent allow their kid to go around hungry, dirty and needy? How do you get so confused and selfish that you allow your kids that pain? That being said, anyone who even attempts to justify this as good parenting should have their ass beat.

Three kids, at that. If you underestimate how much it will cost to take care of one kid, don't have two more. This is where being pro-choice comes in handy. If you fail to use a condom or b/c, you still have a choice not to have more kids. And then once you have the kids, you can choose to stop getting more dogs. I have little tolerance for horrible parents... too much personal witness, especially considering how many children and teenagers I've taught. I'm actually not entirely opposed to overfeeding your kids with junk food to the point of obesity being considered child abuse. So many people just shouldn't be allowed to breed.

SM, I just find it ridiculous that you engaged a troll like MOTO at all anymore.

That way of thinking is even more ridiculous. People excuse others for making ignorant or just plain factually incorrect statements because "oh, he's a troll, he does that all the time, so it's okay." But then I am not allowed to respond, because I am not a troll? [inb4 ya ur a troll] I don't argue with people like that for their own benefit, you know. It's actually become rather frustrating to try and have discussions around here recently because it seems that any conversation with a degree of substance beyond "we all agree about basically everything except some minor details" is met with derision and disinterest. I enjoy talking with people I disagree with much more than people I agree with on everything. I don't think that's ridiculous at all.

So yeah, it was a dumb, circular argument you were having with him.

I disagree. I feel like we were actually getting somewhere before everyone butted in and decided to make this argument about themselves.

Oh, and I posted a picture that said religion would disappear. Religion. Not creationism. You replied by asking if everyone believing in gravity would be drab.

Gonna have to call you on that one, as it is at best a complete falsehood and at worst a blatant lie. I didn't say anything until you made the comment, "The world would be drab if everyone believed the same thing." I asked you if you thought it would be drab if everyone believed in gravity, and you said that gravity doesn't count, you were talking about "beliefs." And I said, "Yes, gravity is a belief. So is creationism." I said they were both beliefs.

You are limiting "religion" to one kind of religion, the kind that you like and find easy to defend.

You said absolutely nothing about creationism. You compared religion to not believing in gravity. And yes, that's very condescending.

Gonna have to call you on bullshit again. Here are my exact words:

Creationism is a belief. They believe that we were created by a deity 6000 years ago, and that this deity exists and interacts with humans to this day. That's an assessment of what is out there beyond what humans can see. It's also factually incorrect, at least given the accounts that have been offered so far.

All that stuff about the afterlife and what's there that we can't see is basically just a "what if" game. No atheist ever said you can't play what if. It's only when people say, "I believe this is what happens after I die, and I have no evidence other than my belief that it would be neat," that they really begin to take issue with the reasoning.

--Me

You tried to separate gravity from creationism with the qualifier "gravity is a fact and you either believe in it or you don't. Beliefs related to faith or simply what's out there beyond what humans can see is wide open, with tons and tons of different views." Gravity is a fact; Creationism being true or false is a fact, because it is an active statement about our current world and its origins.

It's actually kind of weird how often you get this sort of thing wrong. For someone who hates labels, you sure do oversimplify things a lot of the time, especially when they pertain to religion.

That said, I'm not going to discuss this particular previous, unrelated issue about religion with you here. You obviously never read what I wrote the first time *anyway,* so there's really no point in going over it again.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

Step 1: I post image that says religion could disappear.
Step 2: I say that I woudn't necessarily enjoy it if all religion was gone.
Step 3: You ask if I'd also not enjoy it if everyone believed in gravity.

Your specific example about Creationism came several comments later. You did NOT make it clear that you were only specifically talking about Creationism with your gravity comparison, especially as Creationism hadn't even been mentioned before your gravity comment. You kidding me? Your comment was very condescending, so now you're trying to backpedal.

Oh, and I know people with a huge variety of religious views. I don't "like" any religion, nor do I care to "defend" any of them. I care to respect people around me despite the fact that we may disagree on religion. If someone is a shitty person, they're gonna be shitty no matter what their religious views are. I am against the institution of religion, but not people who have certain beliefs. Meanwhile, you like to shit on people for being religious.

Step 1: I post image that says religion could disappear.
Step 2: I say that I woudn't necessarily enjoy it if all religion was gone.
Step 3: You ask if I'd also not enjoy it if everyone believed in gravity.

If you had phrased it that way, then that would have been one thing. Second, the article was incorrect; the study did not say that religion would disappear, it said that nones would be the statistical majority, which is a 100% different statement.

Originally Posted by Llamas

Your specific example about Creationism came several comments later. You did NOT make it clear that you were only specifically talking about Creationism with your gravity comparison, especially as Creationism hadn't even been mentioned before your gravity comment. You kidding me? Your comment was very condescending, so now you're trying to backpedal.

Who's backpedaling? I was clear what I meant. You said it would be drab if people didn't all have the same beliefs. I made the point that sometimes, having the same beliefs is good, if it's about something factual. I take issue when people use fallacies to defend religious beliefs, even if they are well-intentioned fallacies.

Originally Posted by Llamas

Oh, and I know people with a huge variety of religious views. I don't "like" any religion, nor do I care to "defend" any of them. I care to respect people around me despite the fact that we may disagree on religion. If someone is a shitty person, they're gonna be shitty no matter what their religious views are. I am against the institution of religion, but not people who have certain beliefs. Meanwhile, you like to shit on people for being religious.

I don't "shit on people for being religious," and you can't give me a single example where I have.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

Can I ask you, since you are obviously not their friend, how you would know so much details about their life ? Does she post on facebook "Oh my dog took a crap on the floor and I'm not going to clean it properly !" ?

I'm sorry but I don't think it's ok judging others without being in their shoes. Maybe living with 200$ a month in an environment when you are constantly pushed to buy stuff is a horrible horrible life. Maybe they are indeed thinking of their kids. Maybe she has a reason not to work. Maybe they are trying. Maybe you caught them in these small moments when they can't deal with it anymore.

Maybe they need help. Maybe, just maybe, they didn't realize the responsability of having kids, and maybe they need a social assistant that would help them.

But taking away their kids ? Do you think of the said kids ? You are talking about getting them away from their parents and family to put them in a place full of strangers when their parents... well, they are not drinking, they are not drug addicts and they are not beating them...that will make them confident adults, for sure.

We were kind of friends, once upon a time, more due to proximity than anything, but that stopped. She constantly shares her business with anyone who stands too close. I'm in the senior staff at the Woods of Terror, so I spend lots of time there, where she goes to distract her boyfriend who is trying to work. She has no reason for not working. None. When someone has the misfortune of hiring her, she quits or gets fired within a week. Every. Single. Time. I've seen that happen over and over in the 2 years they've associated with the haunted house. I've seen and spent time in their home. Instead of spending time with her sons, she leaves them with her grandfather, who can't even care for himself, let alone, two young boys.

At least in foster care, they might have a decent meal, clean clothes, and a sanitary environment.

I'm not generally an advocate for taking children away from parents and I don't equate welfare with being bad parents. However, when your children don't eat, because you spent your money on liquor and costumes, I draw a line. I grew up with neglect, but at least I always knew there would be dinner.

Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565

Or what? Or you'll leave as soon as someone returns your rudeness and delete all your posts? I'm so scared.

I just read SM's thread where he quoted someone calling me a troll???? Me...your humble MOTO...a troll. Well, to whatever (yes...IT is a "what") unimformed worthless fuck called me this...kiss my ass. Either this thing that "thinks" I'm a troll is a raving lunatic not possessing the mental capacity of two headed flat worm...or...is one of those "special" people I think are really good for this country. Read in any amount of sarcasm necessary. Please back to the topic at hand.

I agree. It is wrong to call MOTO a troll. When he says unbelievably ignorant things we all want to think he can't really mean it, he must be trolling. But no, I'm afraid he means it. MOTO is not a troll. He really is just that fucking wrong about pretty much everything.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks

Second, the article was incorrect; the study did not say that religion would disappear, it said that nones would be the statistical majority, which is a 100% different statement.

I didn't read the article - I wasn't aware there was an article attached. I simply saw an image with an idea that I thought could lead to interesting discussion. The article itself was irrelevant for the purposes that I shared the image, so I'm unsure as to why you keep bringing that up (posting about it on the thread itself, posting the article itself with a passive-aggressive jab, and now bringing it up here).

Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black

I agree. It is wrong to call MOTO a troll. When he says unbelievably ignorant things we all want to think he can't really mean it, he must be trolling. But no, I'm afraid he means it. MOTO is not a troll. He really is just that fucking wrong about pretty much everything.

Haha, I'm not so sure about that, considering how often he posts things that contradict himself, or are just so beyond out there that he clearly doesn't actually believe. Dude likes riling people up, that's all

I didn't read the article - I wasn't aware there was an article attached. I simply saw an image with an idea that I thought could lead to interesting discussion. The article itself was irrelevant for the purposes that I shared the image, so I'm unsure as to why you keep bringing that up (posting about it on the thread itself, posting the article itself with a passive-aggressive jab, and now bringing it up here).

(1) I'm sure you may find this hard to believe, but although that was indeed a passive-aggressive jab, it was not directed at you specifically, though it apparently applies. In fact, a lot of things I say on my other media accounts are not directed at you. If you had read the article (lol) that I linked to as a supplement for that comment, you would have realized that it was a reference to the fact that so many Christian bloggers reposted the original article and appended their criticisms to it without apparently reading it; I even copied the first paragraph of the article along with the link, for ease of reference.

(2) I just figured since we were bringing other random arguments into this that had nothing to do with anything in an attempt to discredit each other, I might as well point out that your initial jab against me (that I "compared religious people to people who don't believe in gravity") was not only completely false, but based on comments I made to you on the subject of an article that you had reposted without reading (you know, that thing you accused me of doing), and thus had not understood correctly, in the first place. Even if the article itself wasn't attached, it was referenced in the graphic, so there's really no excuse for not having at least glanced it over to confirm its basic authenticity.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."